While this isn't the first time that DirecTV has promoted that customers can get some movies from them faster as opposed to Netflix, over the weekend DirecTV started running a new series of commercials taking aim at Netflix's 28-day window. I can't link to the video as I can't find it online, but in the commercial, DirecTV highlights the Russel Crowe Robin Hood movie on the screen and tells Netflix customers that with DirecTV, they don't have to wait to get 30 days to get new movies.

While DirecTV's commercial is accurate, I found it funny that they used the Russel Crowe Robin Hood movie as an example. For all the talk of online movie platforms, streaming devices and 28-day windows, nearly ever online movie service on the market has the exact same content. On the Xbox 360, one of the featured movies in the Zune Video channel is Robin Hood. And when you launch iTunes and select movies, it's Robin Hood they highlight. PS3, Ronin Hood. Amazon Video On Demand, Robin Hood. Even firing up an old VUDU device, Robin Hood comes up number two. CinemaNow, Robin Hood. That's six different online movie services all promoting and highlighting the exact same content.

For all the talk of how different these services are suppose to be, I find that when it comes to the content available for streaming, nearly all of them are identical. Sure, there are some services that have a deeper catalog of content, or more content in HD, but I don't know of any online movie service today that has an "exclusive" for movies and most TV shows.

I currently stream movies using platforms including Netflix, Zune Video, PlayStation Network, Blockbuster, iTunes, CinemaNow and VUDU across devices like Roku, Xbox, PS3, Apple TV, TiVo, Sony Netbox, WD TV Live Plus and others and frankly, there are not that many differences between them. The devices look different but the platforms and most importantly the content, are all nearly identical.

Right now, no one service really stands apart in the online movie space and until one of them starts buying exclusive rights to content, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Earlier in the year, Netflix signed deals with Twentieth Century Fox, Universal and Warner Brothers agreeing not to rent new DVDs by mail for 28 days from the date the DVD goes on sale. Yesterday, Netflix confirmed it has agreed to a similar deal with Sony and the 28-day window for their content. In exchange for Netflix agreeing to the studio's terms, Netflix says they get access to more digital content allowing them build up their inventory of streaming titles faster. But the problem I see with this approach by Netflix is that their inventory of streaming content hasn't really grown by a large percentage over the past two years.

In January of 2008, Netflix confirmed it had about 12,000 titles available for streaming. In September of 2009, ads on their website put that number at 17,000. Today, it appears that Netflix has about 20,000 titles for streaming, although Netflix won't confirm that number for me. If that number is accurate, it means that Netflix has only added about 4,000 movies a year for the past two years. That's not a lot of content.

The problem I have with these deals is that neither Netflix nor any of the studios are willing to say just how much digital content Netflix gets or how new any of that content is. If this deal is so good for Netflix users, why won't they give out any specifics? As a Netflix user, I want to know what I am getting by giving up the ability to get new movies by mail when they come out. I would think Netflix would want to reinforce that with customers by telling them that they may not be able to get new movies, but look at all this other great stuff you get in return. Netflix simply tells their customers that these deals are good for us, with no details for us to decide for ourselves.

Why should we believe that the consumer is the one that is really going to benefit from this when it appears that only the studios and Netflix benefit? Because Netflix agrees to the 28-day window, the studios charge Netflix less for the DVDs when they go to buy them. And because of the window, the studios get to try and sell more DVDs to us, even though consumers are asking for more first-run digital content. We're not asking to buy more DVDs. So I see the benefit to Netflix and the studios, but what about the Netflix customer?

I'm sure many will point to the recent licensing deals Netflix has done with EPIX and other content owners to argue that Netflix is growing their inventory of digital content quickly, but the number of titles available for streaming don't back that up. Netflix is spending a lot of money now on licensing digital content, yet the company doesn't answer any questions about what their inventory looks like, the number of titles available, or any details on how old or new their digital inventory is. And while Netflix is quick to tell us about all the new licensing deals they do, they never mention when many of their older deals expire and that content is removed from the watch now inventory. The number of titles available for streaming is going up, but based on everything we have seen so far, I would argue that Netflix's inventory of digital content simply isn't growing fast enough.

Disclaimer: I am a long time Netflix customer and love the service.

On Wednesday at 2pm ET, come join me as I moderate a Q&A session entitled "Video Delivery in the Enterprise" with Adobe’s product manager Kelash Kumar in our next installment of StreamingMedia.com's Ask Adobe Web Event Series. Don’t miss out on this opportunity to ask Adobe all about their new enterprise Flash Media Server and get your questions answered on the topic of delivering high quality video for live and on-demand communications and training within your organization. The webinar is free and you can sign up here.

The contest is now closed. Earlier today I reviewed the new Apple TV player in a head-to-head comparison with Roku's new XDS model. As a result, I have one extra Apple TV unit to give away to a lucky reader of my blog. To enter the drawing, all you have to do is leave one comment on this post and make sure you submit the comment with a valid email address. The drawing is open to anyone with a mailing address in the U.S. or Canada and the winner will be selected at random on October 18th. I'm also giving away a Roku XDS unit and you can enter that drawing here. Congrats to Gina Sepowski who won the Apple TV.

[Updated Sept. 4th 20102:Check out my new review at: “Roku 2 vs. Apple TV: How To Chose The Right $99 Streamer“]

What’s better, the new Apple TV or the newly announced lineup of Roku boxes? That’s the question I keep getting asked now that both devices are in the market. Over the past week, I’ve had the chance to use both the Apple TV and a Roku XDS model and here’s my review on how they stack up in a head-to-head comparison. Before the review, I think it’s important to note that while many in the media are quick to compare and mention devices like Apple TV, Boxee, Google TV and Roku to one another, those aren’t fair comparisons. The four similar devices that should be compared are Apple TV, Roku, Sony Netbox and Western Digital’s WD TV Live Plus media player. While I’ve used and have all four devices, for this post I’m going to focus exclusively on Apple TV versus Roku. (I’m also giving away an Apple TV and Roku)

Hardware
The new Apple TV has HDMI, an optical audio connection, ethernet, WiFi (802.11a/b/g/n) and a USB port which Apple says is for “service and support” of the unit. The device supports video up to 720p and also comes with a remote and power cord with no power brick. Apple TV retails for $99 and while some units have already shipped, the Apple website currently lists a 1-2 week ship date for new orders. Apple offers a one year warranty on their device and consumers can extend the warranty by another year for $29.

Last month, Roku announced a new lineup of three boxes called the HD, XD and XDS. For the purpose of the comparison with Apple TV, I used Roku’s top of the line model, the Roku XDS. The XDS has HDMI, optical audio connection, component, composite outputs and USB. The device has support for WiFi (802.11a/b/g/n), supports playback of video up to 1080p and comes with a remote and power supply. The XDS retails for $99 and is shipping today from Roku.com or next week from Amazon.com. All of Roku’s boxes comes with a one year warranty and you can add a second year for $14.99.

When it comes to the hardware, Roku beats the Apple TV hands-down. All three Roku models, even the cheaper ones, support 1080p while Apple TV stops at 720p. While I’ve seen some argue that the lack of 1080p support by Apple TV is not a big deal since not many content owners are streaming in 1080p today, who wants to have to buy a new device a year or two from now in order to upgrade? The Roku boxes are future proof as they ensure that when 1080p is prevalent, their boxes will be ready. Some details have emerged saying Apple TV can play 1080p content from iTunes, but it can still only output in 720p.

Another hardware advantage that Roku has over Apple TV is that you can hook it up to older TVs that may not have an HDMI connection. Clearly Apple is targeting users with newer TVs that already have support for HDMI, but for $99, do you want a device that has more connection options or fewer? I would argue that even though HDMI is the future, that is no reason for Apple not to support other options, especially since many older TVs only support 720p, which is what the Apple TV maxes out at. So on one hand Apple only supports the new HDMI connection for newer TVs, yet doesn’t support 1080p which most new TVs support. That does not make a lot of sense.

While both the Apple TV and Roku XDS have USB ports, only the Roku model supports playback of local content via a USB drive. Apple says that the USB port on the Apple TV is only for “service and support” and while one could imagine a future software upgrade to enable the port to playback local content, Apple TV can’t support it today. The Roku unit supports .mp4 playback and will be including support for .mov next month. Owners of the older Roku HD-XR models will also be able to get support for 1080p and the playback of local content via USB in a software update that will come later this year. Apple TV supports playback of .m4v, .mp4, or .mov files but only via sharing within iTunes, not via any connected drives.

When it comes to the remotes, Roku again has the edge in a few areas. One of the things I don’t like about the Apple TV remote is that it doesn’t take standard sized batteries. It’s not a huge deal breaker, but I have a lot more triple AAA batteries lying around for the Roku remote, than the watch sized battery that the Apple TV remote takes. All three Roku models ship with a new remote and the two XD models support what Roku calls “instant replay”. The technology allows you to skip back in 10 second increments while a video is playing without having to re-buffer the stream and works very well. Owners of older Roku models can buy the new remote which enables the instant replay feature.

Software & Content
Not surprisingly, the interface on the Apple TV is a lot smoother, cleaner and more polished than navigating on the Roku. But while it looks nicer, navigating the Apple TV interface is not as easy as it should be and requires far too many clicks to enter text or passwords. Apple uses a long list of letters that you have to scroll through and have to travel end-to-end as opposed to being able to skip around. Having to enter a lot of text is a real pain. Apple TV is a bit easier to setup than the Roku, but not by much. I could give either device to my Mom and she’d be able to setup both devices on her own without having to call me for tech support.

As for the content available on both devices, this is really where Apple TV falls short. Today, Apple TV supports content from Netflix, YouTube and $0.99 rentals from ABC, Disney, Fox, and the BBC. They also support some free Internet content from folks like Revision3 and others, but all of that content is lumped in under the Podcast heading in Apple TV, so most folks probably don’t see it. Apple gives you 24 hours to watch movie rentals and 48 hours to watch TV shows once you begin viewing. When Steve Jobs announced the Apple TV he made a big point to reinforce the fact that Apple would have HD movies available to rent on the same day they are released to DVD. This was one of his major selling points, yet so far, that’s simply not the case. In fact, some of the content Steve Jobs showcased in the launch is no longer even available for rental. Clearly the studios still have all the control regarding what content they will make available for licensing to the Apple TV.

While Roku’s interface make not be as polished as the Apple TV, the Roku makes up for it with all the great content that’s available. Roku has channels for Netflix, Amazon Video On Demand, MLB.TV, UFC, Pandora, Flickr, Facebook Photos and Roku has just announced support for Hulu Plus coming later this year. Roku has more than 75 content channels and expects to have nearly 100 by the end of the year. Roku has an open SDK and as a result, has a lot of content partners working to bring more channels to Roku devices. Compare that to the Apple TV which today, has no SDK and doesn’t run any apps on the box. Some are speculating that the Apple TV will run apps in the future since internally it has 8GB of Flash storage, but none of that is happening today.

Airplay
One of the big features of the Apple TV that many think could be a game-changer is Airplay. The technology allows a user to start watching a video on an iPhone, iPod or iPad and then move that content over to the Apple TV in realtime. While Airplay looks promising, it won’t be released until November and there are still a lot of unanswered questions about how well it will work. For instance, you can move content from iOS devices to Apple TV, but you can’t move content from Apple TV back to iOS devices. Also, one has to wonder how well video streaming will work when you start watching a video encoded for a mobile device, but then want to transfer it back to a large screen. There is also the question of how DRM is going to work with Airplay and my guess is that only content in the H.264 or .MP4 format is going to work, which likely means only FairPlay will be supported. Airplay looks like interesting technology, especially for streaming music, but for video, there are a lot of unanswered questions. So before all the Apple fanboys take over the comments section saying just how groundbreaking Airplay is, we’ll have to wait and see how well it really works once it’s available in the market.

Netflix and Video Quality
While I’ve seen a couple of reviews saying that the quality of Netflix streaming looked better on the Apple TV when compared with other devices, personally, I don’t see it. Testing both the Apple TV and the Roku XDS on a 50″ Vizio plasma TV and a 42″ Samsung LCD TV, it was hard to notice any difference in quality. I felt like Netflix streaming started up just a but faster on the Roku, but really could not tell. The video quality on both devices seemed to be identical to me. What’s not identical on the devices is the Netflix application. The Netflix app is much better on Roku than it is on Apple TV. On the Apple TV, you have to choose the program before you get a description of the movie but Roku gives you description of the program on the first screen. There are a lot of little differences in the Netflix experience where Roku has the edge which should be expected since they have been refining the Netflix interface for their device over the past few years.

Conclusions
I’ve read a lot of reviews of the new Apple TV and many have described it as “a solidly built device” or said “it feels really solid”. While the Apple TV is well built and feels like a heavy hockey puck, that really has nothing whatsoever to do with how Apple TV performs as a streaming device. Others have said that Apple TV is best for those who “value design” yet for a streaming device, performance has to outweigh design. Not to mention, the new Roku XDS models are very slick, really small and in my opinion, very well designed themselves. You can have the nicest, most solid looking device on the market but if it can’t access the content you want, at the quality you want, then the design does not matter.

To me, Apple TV is really nothing more than a crippled iPod that you hook up to your TV. It depends on iTunes running on another device to feed content to it and Apple’s sole purpose with the device is to get you to rent more content. Some have suggested that the Apple TV will provide more value since the hacker community is already jailbreaking the Apple TV, but I would ask why some users always have to jailbreak Apple Products to make them work according to their needs?

While some want to suggest you buy a Boxee or Google TV instead, Apple TV and Roku aren’t trying to be a DVR-esque media hub. Boxee and Google TV are really going after a different kind of user and their products are 4-6x more expensive than the cheapest Roku box, which starts at only $59.99. So if you are interested in a Apple TV or Roku, don’t be put off by people who say you should wait until Google TV is out in the market. Google TV looks to be really cool and also has support for Netflix, but the device will cost close to $300 and serves a different purpose in the market.

After spending a lot of time with both the Apple TV and Roku XDS, I’d much rather have a Roku due to the flexibility with the hardware, the support for 1080p and the fact it gets a lot more content than the Apple TV. If I was trying to decide where to spend my $99, Roku would be the hands down winner in my book. If you have any questions on either device, put them in the comments section and I’ll try and answer them.

Note: I’m giving away both an Apple TV and a Roku XDS to a lucky reader of my blog. You can enter the Apple TV giveaway here and the Roku XDS giveaway here.

UPDATE: I see that some folks in the comments section are implying that I don’t like Apple products and that’s why I picked Roku. So to put that to rest, I should mention that I own a 13″ and 15″ MacBook Pro, an iPad, four iPods, two Airport base stations, and an old and new Apple TV. That’s over $5k in Apple gear. Oh, and did I mention I use to work for Apple as a certified technician back in the days? So I’m anything but an Apple hater.

I'm pleased to announce that on Wednesday Nov. 3rd, Jennifer Taylor, Senior Director at Adobe will kick off the second day of the Streaming Media West show with a keynote that will showcase Adobe’s latest end-to-end workflow solutions for streaming video and social media applications and include a demonstration of Flash running on mobile devices. You will also hear Adobe’s perspective about the evolving landscape for mobile and controversy surrounding HTML5, and how the Adobe Flash Platform fits in.

Jennifer joins Rishi Chandra, Product Lead for Google TV will be the keynote speaker on the first day of the Streaming Media West show, taking place November 2-3 in LA.

Keynotes at the Streaming Media West show are always free to attend. Simply register for a free exhibit pass and you're in! And if you want to register for a conference pass, you can do so using the promo code DRF1 and get $200 off the ticket price.

In July, AT&T signed a non-exclusive deal with Cotendo to integrate their application acceleration and dynamic site acceleration (DSA) services in with AT&T's network. While the news has not yet been announced, on Friday I spoke with AT&T about the deal and it is clear that AT&T plans to challenge Akamai in the market for these value add services.

For those not familiar with Cotendo, the private company launched in March of last year and in just over 18 months, have signed up more than 200 customers who use their dynamic site acceleration (DSA) and application acceleration services. Many of their customers are some of the biggest names on the net including Facebook, Answers.com, Digg and others.

When it comes to application acceleration services, Akamai has pretty much been the only game in town for customers looking for a non-hardware based solution. Yet as more content delivery networks begin to diversify their revenue and focus on what the industry calls "value add services", Akamai won't be the only vendor in the market that content owners can look to. I've written about this in the past, as recently as March of this year where I explained in a post entitled, "CDNs Will Challenge Akamai For Value Add Services", that Akamai won't rule the value add services market forever.

AT&T said that between 40-60% of all new customers in their sales pipeline either have an existing DSA capability or think they might need one and are including that as part of their vendor requirement. While Cotendo may not have 100% of the functionality that Akamai has for these services just yet, they don't need to. AT&T pretty much owns the enterprise market and when customers have a problem, the first place they go looking for a solution is their current vendor, just like it would be with Akamai customers. The result is that AT&T is going to be able to use the relationships they already have with large enterprise customers to solve the problem, without it simply being an RFP bidding process.

In the past 45 days, AT&T says the new Cotendo offering has allowed them to win business that they either had to walk away from in the past, or could not win since they had no DSA offering. As a result, they were losing all of the delivery business of that customer, not just the DSA component. So these new services not only allow AT&T to generate revenue from new product offerings, but also allow them to capture a larger portion of the overall content delivery business.

As a result of AT&T's partner mentality, they did the deal with Cotendo in July, implemented it six weeks later and already had major AT&T customers using the service in August. AT&T expects to be able to talk about some of these customers by name later this year. From the Cotendo customers I have spoken with, they love the service, the performance and the price. The hurdle facing Cotendo is that they don't have a big brand, lots of marketing dollars or a large sales channel, not to mention the ability to easily and quickly scale. But that's exactly what AT&T provides. AT&T now gives Cotendo a direct sales channel, access to AT&T's global network and the marketing clout of the AT&T name.

While I just wrote on my blog only two months ago that,"Akamai's CDN Business Looks Solid, Threat To Value Add Services Far Off", we're going to start seeing pricing pressure in the market for these services sooner than I thought. When asked, AT&T said they could charge customers 50% less than what Akamai charges today and AT&T would still be "extremely happy" with their margins. Of course, I'm not predicting doom-and-gloom for Akamai here; AT&T still has to prove themselves in the market. But make no mistake, pricing for these services will come down in the market and Akamai won't be the only vendor with value add solutions that will solve customers problems. I think we're going to start to see this impact in a noticeable way within the second half of next year.

Of course, I would not be surprised if I got more than a few comments from Akamai shareholders saying that there is no way that AT&T can compete with Akamai for value add services because Akamai is so far ahead of their competitors. While that may be true now, it won't take years for competitors to close that gap. We've seen this play out in the past with video delivery and these additional services are no different. Many years ago, Akamai was the only game in town for large-scale video delivery. They owned the market and could dictate the going rate for pricing. But after a few years, Limelight and Level 3 in particular became serious competitors and forced Akamai to have to reduce their pricing for video delivery. Limelight and Level 3 drove pricing down across the market.

This is the thing to watch with the value add service component of Akamai's business. Even if companies compete with Akamai for only a portion of their value add service business and don't take a lot of market share, they will drive pricing down for these services. While I didn't expect this to happen for some time, AT&T's deal with Cotendo will speed this up due to AT&T not taking the strategy of not having to build everything in-house. Partnering with a specialist like Cotendo, who's already been out in the market for eighteen months with these offerings allows AT&T to come to the market really fast.

For AT&T, it appears as if they are becoming a lot more smarter on how they approach the market, the rate at which they roll out services and the mentality that even though they are a telco, they don't have to build everything themselves. This would be a welcomed change in strategy for the company and something they should see some immediate benefits from.

Related Posts:

– A Detailed Look At Akamai's Application Delivery Product – Part 1

– Overview Of Akamai's Application Delivery Customers – Part 2

– CDNs Will Challenge Akamai For Value Add Services: CDNetworks The Latest

– CDN Cotendo Raises $12M, Has 120 Customers For DSA and App Delivery

– Akamai's CDN Business Looks Solid, Threat To Value Add Services Far Off